

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
More than 7,148 pedestrians were killed by personal motor vehicles in 2024, just shy of a 40-year high. Meanwhile, travelers are much more likely to die in cars than on public transit.
The US Department of Transportation began earlier this month to rescind federal funding for local projects across the country to improve street safety and add pedestrian trails and bike lanes, because they were deemed "hostile" to cars.
A report Monday in Bloomberg cited several examples of multimillion-dollar grants being axed beginning on September 9, all with the same rationale:
A San Diego County road improvement project including bike lanes “appears to reduce lane capacity and a road diet that is hostile to motor vehicles,” a US Department of Transportation official wrote, rescinding a $1.2 million grant it awarded nearly a year ago.
In Fairfield, Alabama, converting street lanes to trail space on Vinesville Road was also deemed “hostile” to cars, and “counter to DOT’s priority of preserving or increasing roadway capacity for motor vehicles.”
Officials in Boston got a similar explanation, as the Trump administration pulled back a previously awarded grant to improve walking, biking, and transit in the city’s Mattapan Square neighborhood in a way that would change the “current auto-centric configuration.” Another grant to improve safety at intersections in the city was terminated, the DOT said, because it could “impede vehicle capacity and speed.”
These are just a few of the projects cancelled in recent weeks by the Trump administration. According to StreetsBlog, others included a 44-mile walking trail along the Naugatuck River in Connecticut, which the administration reportedly stripped funding from because it did not "promote vehicular travel," and new miles of rail trail in Albuquerque for which DOT said funding would be reallocated to "'car-focused' projects instead."
The cuts are part of a broader effort by the Trump administration to slash discretionary federal grants under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Act signed by former President Joe Biden in 2021.
These include the RAISE infrastructure grant and Safe Streets and Roads for All programs, for which Congress has allocated a combined $2.5 billion annually to expand public transportation and address the US's worsening epidemic of pedestrian deaths.
Data published in July by the group Transportation for America revealed that the Trump administration has been implementing funds for safety grants at about 10% of the speed of the Biden administration.
According to a report published in July by the Governors Highway Safety Association, US drivers struck and killed 7,148 pedestrians in 2024, "enough to fill more than 30 Boeing 737 jets at maximum capacity." Though fatalities have decreased slightly from a 40-year peak in 2022, the number of fatalities last year was 20% higher than in 2016.
Research has overwhelmingly shown that adding bicycle and pedestrian lanes to streets can reduce these fatalities. Even the DOT's own Federal Highway Administration website recommends introducing "Road Diets" that reduce four-lane intersections to three lanes, making room for pedestrian refuge islands and bike lanes to serve as a "buffer" between automobile traffic and sidewalks.
According to the website, "studies indicate a 19 to 47% reduction in overall crashes when a Road Diet is installed on a previously four-lane undivided facility as well as a decrease in crashes involving drivers under 35 years of age and over 65 years of age."
Car crash fatalities are also up in general, according to preliminary data from the Department of Transportation: 39,345 were killed in motor accidents in 2024 compared with 32,744 a decade prior, a 20% increase.
Despite this, the Trump administration has made its preference for maximizing car travel abundantly clear. Trump has attempted to block California from constructing a massive new high-speed rail line from Los Angeles to San Francisco and has tried to stymie New York's wildly successful congestion pricing program.
Citing isolated cases of subway and train crime, he and other members of the Republican Party often paint public transit as excessively dangerous.
In one interview on Fox News in May, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy ranted that, "if you're liberal, they want you to take public transportation." While stating that he was "OK with public transportation," he said, "the problem is that it's dirty. You have criminals. It's homeless shelters. It's insane asylums. It's a work ground for the criminal element of the city to prey upon the good people."
However, data show that between 2007 and 2023, deaths from automobile accidents were 100 times more likely than deaths on buses and 20 times more likely than on passenger trains.

That hostility extends toward efforts to expand bicycle usage. In March, Duffy announced that the department would "review" all grants related to green infrastructure, including bike lanes, which was characterized as an effort to combat the previous president's attempts to reduce US transportation's carbon footprint.
Grant criteria sent to communities for the Safe Streets and Roads for All program explicitly warned communities that if "the applicant included infrastructure [resulting in] reducing lane capacity for vehicles," the application would be "viewed less favorably by the department."
When asked about this decision at a panel the next month, StreetsBlog reported that Duffy "grimaced and grumbled the word 'bikes' like it was an expletive, before repeating a string of corrosive myths about bike lanes that are all too common among people who only get around by car," including that they supposedly increase traffic congestion.
Many of the communities that have lost funding for their projects say they are still going to move ahead with them in some capacity. However, they argue that the government providing funds to improve road safety should be common sense.
Rick Dunne, the executive director of the Naugatuck Valley Council of Governments, stated that the effort to build a trail along the river will continue, even without the funding. But he expressed bewilderment at the administration's statement that investing in highway travel would better serve residents' "quality of life."
“Look, if your definition of improving quality of life is promoting vehicular travel, that's just, on its face, bad. Increase vehicle travel, increase pollution, increase safety risks,” Dunne told the CT Post. “Taking this money from this project, putting it into highway travel, is in no way going to increase economic efficiency. I don't see how you argue that it improves the quality of life of Americans, or the residents of this valley.”
The federal funding contained in the Affordable Connectivity Program offered a vital lifeline for people in South Carolina and nationwide. Now we must fight to resurrect such a program so that everyone has digital access that enriches individual lives and communities.
Almost four years ago, Congress established a little-known program called the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) as part of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. Since it was created, the program provided millions of Americans with affordable, high-quality internet. It never got much attention, but it’s impact on communities across the country including in South Carolina was enormous.
Launched by the Federal Trade Commission, the program provided eligible households with a discount on internet service of up to $30 every month to bridge the digital divide. Just this year alone, 415,680 families in South Carolina relied on the program, which averaged to about one in five households in the state. In total, the program saved people in South Carolina over $12 million each month on internet service.
Despite widespread support for the program, its funding expired on June 1st. As elected officials representing Silicon Valley, the tech hub of the world, and Chester, Fairfield, and Richland, predominantly Black counties that have struggled with reliable internet, we are fighting to raise awareness about rising internet bills for families and extend the program for another four years.
The ACP is too important to just let it expire without a fight. When bills come due and 23 million American households are suddenly slapped with an additional cost, the people who will hurt the most are our seniors, young students, people in rural areas or food deserts, and those who rely on the internet for activity and a sense of community.
The ACP is too important to just let it expire without a fight.
For many older Americans, the internet is a lifeline. It lets them talk with loved ones, learn about essential services and benefits, and access healthcare information online. Without affordable internet access, seniors may feel lonelier and more disconnected, lowering their enjoyment and quality of life.
Young people will also be hit especially hard by the program ending. The Covid-19 pandemic highlighted the importance of online educational resources and in an era where technology shapes every aspect of our lives, students need to prepare for jobs in a digital economy. Both of us believe we need to ensure that the next generation has access to good jobs and opportunities and a shot at the American Dream. But we can’t prepare these students for the high paying tech jobs and advanced manufacturing jobs of the future if they don’t have internet access. The internet allows individuals to take advantage of at home remote and virtual trainings.
Another impacted group includes those living in rural areas far away from doctors, hospitals, or pharmacies. The stories we heard about what people went through before this program was enacted were heartbreaking. People were driving for miles and miles just to pick up their medication. Telemedicine provides another, much easier way to receive medical care through remote consultations to prescription refills that can be delivered directly to their homes. People living in food deserts face a similar situation when it comes to ordering groceries and other necessities. Ripping this access away deepens already existing disparities in both healthcare and nutrition.
At any age and in any location, people turn to the internet to find community and make friends. It’s become an essential place particularly for people who may experience discrimination or bullying at school. People with specific hobbies like playing an instrument or running have been able to connect and form bands or running clubs. The ACP empowered people to find like-minded people and pursue their passions and interests online.
The ACP program has improved the lives of millions and opened a new world of social connections, health benefits, education opportunities, and good paying jobs in South Carolina and nationwide. All of us need to speak out now to raise awareness and explore new solutions to protect affordable internet access for all.
"If we want to tackle congestion and the climate crisis, instead of offering platitudes, the next transportation bill needs to offer clean mobility options, like transit, car share, active modes, and electrification," said one analyst.
The law that the Biden administration has heralded as "a once-in-a-generation investment in America's infrastructure" that would help to "build a clean energy economy" has led to an explosion in state-level spending on highway expansion, leading one transportation advocacy group to project on Wednesday that the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law will result in more emissions from transport than if it hadn't passed.
The law, officially known as the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), gave state transportation officials discretion over how to spend money distributed by the $1.2 trillion package, but Transportation for America warned in a new analysis of 57,000 projects that the law has revealed itself to be a "climate time bomb," with more than half of the funds—about $70 billion—so far spent on resurfacing and expanding highways.
Only about $25 billion of the money dispersed to states has been spent on transit and passenger rail, even as Americans clamor for more public transportation options.
As Inequality.org reported last week, a 2023 nationwide survey found that 71% of respondents believed the U.S. "should be shifting funding from highways to public transit," and 70% said such a shift would be better for people's "health, safety, and economy."
"Considering the billions of federal dollars already spent on highway expansion projects, it's going to take more than self-congratulation over the bill's historic funding to undo the environmental harms."
Just 18% said building more highways and highway lanes would reduce traffic, cutting down on greenhouse gas emissions—of which transportation is already the biggest source globally and in the United States.
Transportation for America found that unless states change course, highway expansions paid for by the IIJA will lead to more than 178 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions by 2040 and will be only slightly offset by emissions-reducing measures in the law.
"While the IIJA could have been a win for the environment, across the country, states have instead used this once-in-a-generation level of funding to expand roadways the same way they've been doing for years," wrote Corrigan Salerno, a policy associate for the group. "Considering the billions of federal dollars already spent on highway expansion projects, it's going to take more than self-congratulation over the bill's historic funding to undo the environmental harms."
The group noted that the Biden administration advised states to prioritize highway repairs over expansion, but states including Texas and California have forged ahead with plans to increase congested roads' capacity for more vehicles.
"So much of the decision making falls to state departments of transportation," Mary Buchanan, research and policy manager at TransitCenter told The Guardian. "There are essentially 50 opportunities to get this right, I guess, or to potentially get it wrong, in terms of how money is being spent."
The analysis was released a day after an Indiana state House committee approved a bill delaying implementation of dedicated bus lanes in Indianapolis to "study the transportation option," with Republicans in favor of the bill saying the state needs to have an "overall conversation about road funding."
One Democratic lawmaker who has advocated for more public transit options in the city "broke into tears," according to local public broadcasting affiliate WFYI, as he called the decision "really, really, really bad public policy."
Indianapolis residents had testified for months against the bill, WFYI reported.
Salerno called on the Biden administration and the U.S. Congress to "explore every means available" to reduce transportation emissions.
"Congress needs to get real—the largest and most growing sector of emissions is transportation," Salerno wrote. "If we want to tackle congestion and the climate crisis, instead of offering platitudes, the next transportation bill needs to offer clean mobility options, like transit, car share, active modes, and electrification—not just the same strategies that got us in this position in the first place."
Bringing back the Covid-19-era safety net would bolster financial security and help defeat Trump and the Republicans next November.
By many major indicators, the economy under President Joe Biden is doing great.
Real gross domestic product (GDP) has grown 5% since 2019. Unemployment has fallen to a low of 3.7% after a peak of around 15% in the early days of the Covid-19 pandemic. And inflation, although still higher than pre-pandemic levels, appears to be receding. Real wages are up by 3.5% since Biden took office, with low-wage workers seeing the biggest of those gains between July 2022 and July 2023.
Yet many Americans still seem decidedly unhappy with economic conditions today. Several recent polls have found that people in the United States hold negative views of the economy and of how President Biden has been handling it, despite the rosy macroeconomic indicators. For instance, the Michigan Consumer Sentiment Index, which has been measuring consumer confidence levels nationwide since 1978, found that consumers’ feelings about the economy and their personal finances—although up from an all-time low last summer—were still quite negative in August 2023. And a July New York Times poll found that only 20% of Americans would rate economic conditions today as “excellent” or “good.” (By contrast, 49% rated the economy “poor.”)
This disconnect has led many pundits to wonder what’s going on, with some chalking up Americans’ low opinion of “Bidenomics” to partisanship or ignorance. Look beyond top-line metrics like GDP growth or unemployment, though, and you’ll find a more complicated story. Many Americans report struggling financially, in part because of the discontinuation of many early pandemic welfare policies. So even as the U.S. economy has reaped continued benefits from those programs and is seeing a jobs boom driven in part by the federal government’s historic investments in clean energy and domestic manufacturing, many people are understandably resentful at feeling like the ladder’s been kicked out from under them.
Instead of combining necessary investments in green manufacturing and infrastructure with social safety net provisions to protect the vulnerable, the federal government seems to be giving with one hand and taking with the other.
The situation shows that high-level metrics like GDP growth and unemployment are not good proxies for Americans’ quality of life—or for economic justice. It also demonstrates the need for a progressive economic program of combining ambitious “demand-side” welfare policies with “supply-side” investment programs like the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). That combination is likely to be more conducive to actually helping people—while also being politically popular.
We can’t dismiss the high points of today’s economy, or the role Biden and national Democrats have played in rebuilding it. Real GDP and job growth have not just rebounded from the early Covid recession—they have outpaced the recovery of many other advanced capitalist countries. The United States has also been outperforming most of these nations in lowering both inflation and unemployment. The resulting tight labor market has even helped lower income inequality for the first time since the 1980s.
Biden and Democrats in Congress can take some credit for all this. The relatively generous welfare policies they passed at the beginning of the pandemic helped stimulate demand, making the recession shorter and the recovery from it stronger than would have been the case otherwise. More recent policies, like the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill, the IRA, and the CHIPS Act, have made major investments in domestic manufacturing, further buoying the economy.
So why aren’t Americans celebrating Bidenomics? In a perceptive article at The New Republic, Kate Aronoff points out that many people simply aren’t aware of—and probably don’t viscerally care about—the administrations’ efforts to address climate change and create jobs, including the IRA. The problem is that many of these policies are “pretty boring,” Aronoff says: “Few people get up in the morning excited about the U.S. share of manufacturing employment, or tax credits to install heat pumps.” She goes on to argue that such projects should be married to more visible public investments in things like parks, swimming pools and national forests, and government support for the arts and culture—making sure that “people are having a nice time,” and that they know the government is responsible for it.
Fair enough. Creating communal spaces for leisure has long been an important element of progressive and left-wing political projects. But disapproval of Biden’s economic record isn’t just about ignorance or indifference to his policy achievements. Lots of Americans today really are dealing with economic hardship. Consider a few results from the Federal Reserve Board of Governors’ 2022 Survey of Household Economics and Decisionmaking (SHED):
The Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Survey contains similar revelations: Food insecurity, for instance, is at its highest level since Biden was inaugurated.
It is not too hard to find an explanation for all this, as writers Stephen Semler and Branko Marcetic have argued. The Biden administration allowed the temporarily expansive welfare policies and economic protections enacted during the pandemic to expire. Those included emergency Medicaid and food stamp expansions, eviction moratoria, increased child tax credits, and many other anti-poverty measures.
With these policies’ expiration, it’s no wonder that many people are struggling. Homelessness is up by nearly 40% in big cities including New York and Chicago, eviction filings are on the rise; more adults have been skipping medical treatment due to cost; and only 63% of adults said they could cover a hypothetical $400 emergency expense with cash, down from 68% in 2021. The imminent end of the pause on federal student loan repayments threatens to make things much worse.
Biden and the Democratic Party did succeed in breaking with prior policy orthodoxy in two ways. The first was by passing the American Rescue Plan in early 2021, a relatively generous enlargement of the welfare state in response to the Covid-19 crisis, which focused largely on providing direct support to households. The second break came with the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill, the IRA, and the CHIPS Act—investments focused on boosting supply-side production, including green industry. These policies aim to boost domestic manufacturing and job growth and to help speed the country’s decarbonization.
Biden still has opportunities to help working people, and there are plenty of actions that he and national Democrats could take now to make people’s lives better and to shore up political support.
But by letting the Covid welfare state collapse, the economic and political benefits of this new industrial policy are being muted. Instead of combining necessary investments in green manufacturing and infrastructure with social safety net provisions to protect the vulnerable, the federal government seems to be giving with one hand and taking with the other.
From a policy perspective, this doesn’t make much sense. The “demand-side” and “supply-side” policies serve different goals, and both sorts of programs are necessary for creating an economy that serves everyone’s needs. We need the government to invest aggressively in clean energy and green jobs. We also need programs that guarantee people healthcare, food, and housing.
Politically, it’s clear enough why welfare has gone by the wayside—the attempt to pass a more permanent expansion of the welfare state in the form of Build Back Better (BBB) failed in Congress. It was the obstinance of conservative Democrats such as Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) that ultimately sank BBB. Yet there’s a strong case to be made that Biden and other Democratic leaders gave away the store by failing to use their leverage. Progressives wanted to attach a vote on BBB to the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill, which Manchin strongly supported. By allowing the vote on the infrastructure bill to proceed first, party leadership gave away much of its negotiating power to get Manchin to agree to BBB. The saga called into question the authenticity of the Biden administration’s commitment to the social spending bill in the first place.
But Biden still has opportunities to help working people, and there are plenty of actions that he and national Democrats could take now to make people’s lives better and to shore up political support. That will mean making aggressive use of executive power. First and most obvious, the Biden administration should extend the student loan repayment pause, and it should also use all powers at its disposal to actually make good on its promise to cancel student loan debt. This spring, the Congressional Progressive Caucus put forward a list of other items that Biden could enact through executive orders. These include providing generous sick leave and vacation by strengthening Service Contract Act regulations, and expanding access to healthcare premium subsidies.
Biden could also make the overwhelmingly popular move of legalizing marijuana on the federal level. The administration just announced a plan to negotiate lower prices on a number of drugs for seniors under Medicare, but Biden could take even more aggressive action to lower pharmaceutical prices across the board. Though they are currently stymied by a Republican House majority and a razor-thin Senate majority, congressional Democrats can campaign on no-brainer welfare-state measures like Rep. Rashida Tlaib’s (D-Mich.) End Child Poverty Act which would provide direct child allowances.
With 2024 presidential polls showing Biden in a dead heat with presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump, Democratic complacency is extremely dangerous. A second Trump presidency is likely to be far worse than the first, given that the former president and his team would come in with experience and a real plan. They are planning on, among other things, cleaning house in the federal bureaucracy and filling it with loyalists, invoking the unitary executive theory to give Trump complete control over the executive branch while shielding him from prosecution, and rolling back already-insufficient progress on climate change. A Trump administration would also almost certainly replace Biden’s pro-worker National Labor Relations Board with a virulently anti-labor board.
To avoid this bleak scenario, Democrats should take Americans’ negative views of the economy seriously. This means taking action to provide material benefits to working people while improving their economic security. It also requires offering an exciting, positive alternative political vision to counter the GOP’s grievance-mongering. It will be up to progressives and the Left in and outside of Congress to articulate such a vision—and demand that Biden and the Democratic Party act on it.
"President Biden should have never appointed an investment banker to chair an advisory council for the nation's infrastructure," said one advocate.
An under-the-radar report by U.S. President Joe Biden's National Infrastructure Advisory Council should not go unnoticed, said the national watchdog Food & Water Watch on Thursday, as buried in the document is a call for the privatization of U.S. water systems, which progressive lawmakers and civil society groups have long opposed.
On page 15 of the 38-page report, the advisory council said the federal government should "remove barriers to privatization, concessions, and other nontraditional models of funding community water systems in conjunction with each state's development of best practice."
Food & Water Watch (FWW) suggested that the recommendation goes hand in hand with the panel chairmanship of Adebayo Ogunlesi, who is the chairman and CEO of Global Infrastructure Partners (GIP).
GIP is "an infrastructure investment bank with an estimated $100 billion in assets under management that targets energy, transportation, digital, and water infrastructure," said FWW, making the takeover of public water and wastewater utilities by a private corporation—often under the guise of improving aging systems and lowering costs—financially beneficial for the bank.
"Instead of relying on Wall Street advisers, President Biden should support policies that will truly help communities."
Mary Grant, Public Water for All campaign director at FWW, called the recommendation "a terrible idea."
"President Biden should have never appointed an investment banker to chair an advisory council for the nation's infrastructure," said Grant. "Wall Street wants to take control of the nation's public water systems to wring profits from communities that are already struggling with unaffordable water bills and toxic water."
FWW has analyzed water privatization schemes for years, finding that they it often leave communities "with higher water bills, worse service, job losses, and little control to fix these problems."
A 2018 report by the group titled America's Secret Water Crisis found that out of 11 privatized water utilities across the U.S., all but one refused to provide data about shutoffs for nonpayment. The group's 2011 brief Water = Life showed that low-income households are disproportionately affected by water price hikes by private owners, as privatization turns a resource recognized by the United Nations as an "essential human right" into a commodity.
"Privatization would deepen the nation's water crises, leading to higher water bills and less accountable and transparent services," said Grant. "Privately owned water systems charge 59% more than local government systems, and private ownership is the single largest factor associated with higher water bills—more than aging infrastructure or drought."
Grant noted that the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law passed in 2021 was "a step forward" as it invested $55 billion to expand water infrastructure, but pointed out that "it provided only about 7% of the identified needs of our water systems."
"Instead of relying on Wall Street advisers, President Biden should support policies that will truly help communities by asking Congress to pass the Water Affordability, Transparency, Equity, and Reliability (WATER) Act (H.R. 1729, S. 938)," she added.
Introduced in 2021 by Reps. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Brenda Lawrence (D-Mich.) in the U.S. House and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) in the Senate, the WATER Act would expand funding to small, rural, and Indigenous communities; create a water trust fund; fund projects to eliminate per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, contamination; and require the Environmental Protection Agency to analyze water affordability, shutoffs, and civil rights violations by water utilities, among other steps to improve public water access.
"The WATER Act," said Grant, "would fully restore the federal commitment to safe water by providing a permanent source of federal funding at the level that our water and wastewater systems need to ensure safe, clean, and affordable public water for all."